Anselm, 1033 - 1109. Anselm followed Lanfranc as Abbott of Bec and under his leadership Bec became one of the foremost centres of learning in Europe He followed Lanfranc as Archbishop of Canterbury in 1093. (William II (son of the Conqueror) was King of England, and from 1106 Henry I (son of the Conqueror) Anselm, together with Lanfranc and Abelard are thought to represent the beginning of the Scholasticism movement in Europe often typified by Aquinas, and referred to as a group in Article 13. Cur Deus Homo ("Why God was a Man") was written from 1095 to 1098 once Anselm was already archbishop of Canterbury as a response for requests to discuss the Incarnation. It takes the form of a dialogue between Anselm and Boso, one of his students. Its core is a purely rational argument for the necessity of the Christian mystery of atonement, the belief that Jesus's crucifixion was necessary to atone for mankind's sin. Anselm argues that, owing to the Fall and mankind's fallen nature ever since, humanity has offended God. Divine justice demands restitution for sin but human beings are incapable of providing it, as all the actions of men are already obligated to the furtherance of God's glory. Further, God's infinite justice demands infinite restitution for the impairment of his infinite dignity. The enormity of the offence led Anselm to reject personal acts of atonement, even Peter Damian's flagellation, as inadequate and ultimately vain. Instead, full recompense could only be made by God, which His infinite mercy inclines Him to provide. Atonement for humanity, however, could only be made through the figure of Jesus, as a sinless being both fully divine and fully human. Taking it upon himself to offer his own life on our behalf, his crucifixion accrues infinite worth, more than redeeming mankind and permitting it to enjoy a just will in accord with its intended nature. This interpretation is notable for permitting divine justice and mercy to be entirely compatible and has exercised immense influence over church doctrine, largely supplanting the earlier theory developed by Origen and Gregory of Nyssa that had focused primarily on Satan's power over fallen man. Cur Deus Homo is often accounted Anselm's greatest work, but the legalist and amoral nature of the argument, along with its neglect of the individuals actually being redeemed, has been criticized both by comparison with the treatment by Abelard and for its subsequent development in Protestant theology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anselm_of_Canterbury#Cur_Deus_Homo Attached is a workable copy of the work in English. Some concessions have been made here, including inserting paragraphs (I find three page paragraphs to hard to deal with) and some more contemporary rending of the English, just to make it easier to read. I would be interested in having a discussion, preferably not an argument on the arguments of Cur Deus Homo.
Cur Deus Homo pretty much out to be read and known by every Christian, in my opinion. It's such a critically foundational work.
I think there are shades of Anselm ringing through the thirty Nine Articles and some of the Homilies, including the Homily of Justification.
I believe there are many hypothesis on this subject: I.e. ransom sacrifice, atonement, new Adam, all of which have scriptural basis. I have take to the belief that there is no way of proving which one is correct and so we sit in the mystery before us.
Anselm's position has often been described as Satisfaction, though I perhaps would prefer to describe it as Reconciliation, for he seeks to see the Reconciliation of God and Humankind, through the ministrations of Jesus who is the reconciliation of Divine Mercy and Divine Justice. In terms of the Atonement, it is not that there are many theories, so much as approaches, and no approach we be sufficiently expansive to enclose the mystery, so in that we agree absolutely.
Anselm provides a window into a forgotten way of thinking about God. His theory is rightly called the “Satisfaction Theory”, but what often gets overlooked is that what was satisfied according to Anselm was God’s honor. While I personally adhere exclusively to the Moral Example/Influence Theory - Jesus redeems humanity by leading us to repent in sorrow over his unjust death - I nevertheless think it’s important to be familiar with each of the strands of Tradition, and in the terms that the original proponents of their respective theories would have used and understood. Thinking in terms of God’s honor is a bit jarring to modern ears, and can be a subtle if effective corrective to overly narrow modern ways of thinking about the subject.
Usually all the theories on the atonement are valid. The questions is emphasis, nonetheless the so called PSA has been attacked in very dishonest manners by, particularly, the Eastern Christians. Saying that PSA was an innovation is absolutely ignorant and so many do it. I would like to post some passages by the church fathers in order that people may see that the PSA is right there: "The Lord endured the deliverance of his flesh to corruption, so that wemight be cleansed by the forgiveness of sins, that is, by his sprinkled blood.For the scripture concerning him relates partly to Israel and partly to us,and speaks as follows: ‘He was wounded because of our transgressions,and has been afflicted because of our sins; by his wounds we were healed.Like a sheep he was led to slaughter, and like a lamb he was silent beforehis shearer.’ [(Epistle of Barnabas 5:1-2) Michael W.Holmes, ed., The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations (3 rd edn;Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007)] "For the whole human race will be found under a curse. For it is written inthe law of Moses, ‘Cursed is everyone that continueth not in all things thatare written in the book of the law to do them.’ And no one has accuratelydone all … If, then, the Father of all wished His Christ for the whole humanfamily to take upon Him the curses of all, knowing that, after He had beencrucified and was dead, He would raise him up, why do you argue aboutHim, who submitted to suffer these things according to the Father’s will,as if he were accursed, and do not rather bewail yourselves?[ Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 94-95 ( ANF 1:247)] "God has manifested his righteousness and given Christ to be ourredemption. He has made him our propitiator … For God is just, andtherefore he cannot justify the unjust. Therefore he required theintervention of a propitiator, so that by having faith in him those who couldnot be justified by their own works might be justified [ Origen, Comentarii in Epistulam ad Romanos, vol. 2, ed. T. Heither (5 vols; NewYork: Herder, 1990–1995): 112, 130 (ACCS NT 6:99)] "If any of our own people also inquire … why he suffered death in noneother way save on the Cross, let him also be told that no other way thanthis was good for us, and that it was well that the Lord suffered this for oursakes. For if he came himself to bear the curse laid upon us, how else couldhe have ‘become a curse,’ [Gal. 3:13] unless he received the death set fora curse? And that is the Cross. For this is exactly what is written: ‘Cursedis he that hangeth on a tree.’ [Deut. 21:23] Again, if the Lord’s death is theransom of all, and by his death ‘the middle wall of partition’ [Eph. 2:14]is broken down … how would he have called us to him, had he not beencrucified? [Athanasius, On the Incarnation of the Word 25.1–3 ( NPNF2 4:49)] "Thus the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sins of the world, became a curse on our behalf.” .... “And the Lamb of God not only did this, but was chastised on our behalf, and suffered a penalty He did not owe, but which we owed because of the multitude of our sins; and so He became the cause of the forgiveness of our sins, because He received death for us, and transferred to Himself the scourging, the insults, and the dishonour, which were due to us, and drew down upon Himself the appointed curse, being made a curse for us". [Eusebius, Demonstratio Evangelica 10.1, trans. W. J. Ferrar] "If one that was himself a king, beholding a robber and malefactor under punishment, gave his well-beloved son, his only-begotten and true, to be slain; and transferred the death and the guilt as well, from him to his son (who was himself of no such character), that he might both save the condemned man and clear him from his evil reputation; and then if, having subsequently promoted him to great dignity, he had yet, after thus saving him and advancing him to that glory unspeakable, been outraged by the person that had received such treatment: would not that man, if he had any sense, have chosen ten thousand deaths rather than appear guilty of so great ingratitude? This then let us also now consider with ourselves, and groan bitterly for the provocations we have offered our Benefactor; nor let us therefore presume, because though outraged he bears it with long-suffering; but rather for this very reason be full of remorse" [John Chrysostom, Homilies on Second Corinthians 6, NPNF¹ 12:335.]
Nevertheless, the death of Christ at the hands of the human race, and Christ's prayer to his Father for forgiveness of that crime against Love, Life and The Way, is an ultimate demonstration of the Love of God for mankind, in that God was willing to suffer the shame with humility in order to 'Save the World' and 'Draw everything to himself ', God being the ONLY Saviour. .